(PC) Reyna v. Kings County Jail ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN REYNA, 1:20-cv-00447-GSA-PC 12 ORDER FOR CLERK TO RANDOMLY Plaintiffs, ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS 13 CASE vs. 14 and KINGS COUNTY JAIL, et al., 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. TO DISMISS CASE WITHOUT 16 PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER 17 (ECF No. 6.) 18 OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, IF ANY, DUE 19 WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS 20 21 22 23 24 John Reyna (“Plaintiff”) is a Kings County Jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 25 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 26 commencing this action on March 27, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) 27 On July 28, 2021, the court issued a screening order dismissing the Complaint for 28 violation of Rile 18(a), with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 6.) 1 The thirty-day time period has now expired and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or 2 otherwise responded to the screening order. Plaintiff was forewarned that his failure to comply 3 with the screening order would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed in its 4 entirety. (Id. at 17.) 5 In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives set 6 forth in its order, “the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in 7 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 8 prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the 9 public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 10 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)). 11 “‘The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal,’” 12 id. (quoting Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)), and here, the 13 action has been pending since March 27, 2020. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s order 14 may reflect Plaintiff’s disinterest in prosecuting this case. In such an instance, the Court cannot 15 continue to expend its scarce resources assisting a litigant who will not respond to the court’s 16 order. Thus, both the first and second factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 17 Turning to the risk of prejudice, “pendency of a lawsuit is not sufficiently prejudicial in 18 and of itself to warrant dismissal.” Id. (citing Yourish at 991). However, “delay inherently 19 increases the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence will become stale,” id., and it 20 is Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint that is causing delay. Therefore, the third factor 21 weighs in favor of dismissal. 22 As for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the proceedings there is little 23 available to the Court which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the 24 Court from further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. Given that Plaintiff is a 25 prisoner who is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court finds monetary sanctions of little use, 26 and given the early stage of these proceedings, the preclusion of evidence or witnesses is not 27 available. However, inasmuch as the dismissal being considered in this case is without prejudice, 28 the Court is stopping short of issuing the harshest possible sanction of dismissal with prejudice. 1 Finally, because public policy favors disposition on the merits, this factor will always 2 weigh against dismissal. Id. at 643. 3 Based on the foregoing, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a district 4 judge to this case; 5 and 6 The Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this case be dismissed without prejudice, 7 based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s order issued on July 28, 2021. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 10 (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 11 objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 12 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 13 within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 14 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 15 1991)). 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: September 18, 2021 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28